Wow, It's Been A Long Time...HOPE, Huck, and Here Comes 2012

Literally. It's been 3 months or so since I had a post on here. But recent events have stirred up my political mind. At the forefront these days are the changes being made to the HOPE Scholarship here in Georgia. I am going to be very upfront about this: I have been extremely reluctant to criticize Governor Deal and the choices/tweaks he has chosen to make. This was a completely lose-lose situation. No matter what he did, there was no easy way out. But it seems like he did choose a bit of a tougher road than what was necessary. In a press release by former Governor Roy Barnes, Deal was criticized for not simply reimplementing the salary caps that HOPE was established under. That seemed like the fairest choice in my opinion. Governor Deal, however, chose to put the harder part of the burden on academics, and not on need. Which is his prerogative; but it's really going to suck when the super-intelligent kid who can cure cancer, but comes from an underprivileged home, can't afford to pay the extra cost. This move simply benefits those already able to afford college (who just happen to be kind of bright too...not to mention there is a correlation between family socioeconomic status and college entrance test performance...but the devil's in the details I guess). In my opinion, the original intent of the scholarship was to pave the way for those who couldn't AFFORD college and were bright; not those who were bright and already had the bankroll to go. But alas, elections have consequences. Speaking of which, besides that little rant there, I don't have anything terrible to say about Governor Deal. I've actually been quite impressed with his candor and job performance up to this point. He suggested that the state was wasting money by continually locking up drug offenders, instead of actually helping them (the whole "what's the point of prison" debate: incarceration or rehabilitation?) and I was pleased to hear him make that statement.

Speaking of those making bold statements, I caught a couple of articles recently about Mike Huckabee boldly talking where few Republicans have talked before (for now). In the first, he blatantly called out a likely rival in former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and asked him to either "apologize" for RomneyCare in the Bay State, or to "own it." And he makes a good point. Romney's Achilles Heel will be healthcare if he decides to run for President in 2012. He will never live his plan down, and to some Republican voters, there is nothing he could ever say to explain it away. It simply looks too much like the current President's healthcare measure for them to even consider voting for Romney in a primary. Mr. Huckabee also came to the DEFENSE of First Lady Michelle Obama and her campaign to get kids active to combat childhood obesity. This plan has been viciously criticized by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, who've each called it "big government." They claim the First Lady is attempting to control our dinner plates and the food we eat, and I was pleased to see Governor Huckabee say he completely supported the campaign of the First Lady, and if she could get kids active and involved, and losing weight (or never gaining it), he seemed to question who in their right mind would be against that? Governor Huckabee seems to be walking a particularly fine line that nobody else in the potential primary field is even able to walk: maintaining conservative credentials, while not being combative, misleading, extreme, or polarizing in the statements he makes. He is already appealing to moderates and independents; the question is: is it too early to do that?

Which brings me to the third and final big thing for the night: the 2012 Presidential Election potentially heating up. We're seeing more and more potential candidates giving speeches and making names for themselves and appearing on television/book tours in order to "test the waters." Tim Pawlenty is the big one. He's going around to every Tea Party convention that will have him and giving barnburning speeches...but he's highlighting the different approaches that each candidate can take while he does it. Governor Pawlenty is the perfect foil for Governor Huckabee. Huck is out on book tour, doing television and radio shows, talking about principles of small government, fiscal responsibility and family values [all Republican buzzwords], however, he's sticking to the content of the issues. He never goes after the First Lady/Family (calling the President an excellent role model as a father), he doesn't yell or scream, or prey on the fear of uninformed Americans. Which seems to be the route Mr. Pawlenty wants to take. He's going around to Tea Party conventions, whipping out birth certificate jokes, and banter about religion, and conspiracies about the current President all in an effort to get a laugh and some applause from Tea Party members (sadly it works most of the time). Governor Pawlenty WAS a sensible, intelligent man, talking of balanced budgets, and limited government as recently as last year; but when he chose to run in 2012, and I think he already has, he took a sharp turn to the right and apparently has now pulled into the parking lot at some kind of Birther Comedy Club. Someone should tell him that he's just not that funny. But with each differing tactic, we have a field forming. It seems as though Mitt Romney would be crazy not to give it a shot, though he'll struggle in the South. Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich all seem poised to run, though I don't think they'll all announce anytime soon. Maybe one or two of them. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has been all over the place talking about the economy. He's the boring, intelligent, sensible, but sometimes hard to keep up with (or stay awake with) potential candidate...the "Bob Dole" of 2012 if you will. Of course everyone asks about Sarah Palin. And quite frankly, I don't care. I think Republicans will have a difficult time with her if she tries to run, because she's so popular. I think a Sarah Palin candidacy is the only guarantee of an Obama second term. Herman Cain has became a Tea Party favorite, though I view him as a flash-in-the-pan, Ron Paul type, with a dedicated following that just isn't large enough. Haley Barbour can't seem to remember what the 1960s were like in Mississippi, claiming that he didn't remember things in Yazoo City where he grew up being that bad. I actually believe him. They weren't that bad...for him...because he's white. Nothing was that bad for him in Mississippi in 1960, someone just needs to nudge him and tell him it's about time to take off the rose colored glasses when it comes to those who weren't white. Odd how people just sometimes "forget" history, isn't it? In my mind, he poses no challenge to the Southern vote for Governor Huckabee. Haley Barbour represents everything that Southerners don't want other people to think about the South: plantations, privilege, cotton fields, and a Moonlight and Magnolias view of Southern history. Mike Huckabee is the true story of the emerging South. He grew up on the poor side of Hope, Arkansas, with much of the black community. He's self made, devoutly religious, and can be quite resentful of the "Old South" power structure that Mr. Barbour came from. I loved this article about their two backgrounds: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/27/mike-huckabee-and-haley-barbour-a-tale-of-two-souths/ But I figure the field looks something like this: Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Daniels, Gingrich, Barbour, Cain, maybe Palin, maybe Ron Paul again. As I've said to many people, many times, it would be foolish of me to say that I have already made up my mind and that I'm definitely, 100% voting for President Obama in 2012. I am actually pretty moderate, and fairly reasonable, and there ARE a couple of candidates in that list that I could vote for if I feel disaffected with the current President in the next year. But I can promise you it won't be anybody who's questioned/joked about his citizenship or religious affiliation, it won't be an extreme neo-conservative who votes party line for no reason other than ideology, and it won't be anybody who couldn't pass a basic history test. Which, sadly, only leaves about 3. Let the guessing games begin.

2010 Sure Is Dragging...

So, as I sat and watched Morning Joe early today (as I always do), a discussion broke out about the 2012 Presidential Election. It carried over into The Daily Rundown with Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd (which I also always watch if I'm still in front of the television). The big question was: why is it taking so long to start? We are already two weeks past midterm election day and nobody on the Republican side has formally announced plans to run for President (though most of them also won't formally say that they aren't either). Many people are probably thinking, "Thank God, a break from campaign season." But for those people like me, who thrive on this kind of thing, we're really sitting on the edges of our respective seats. Chuck Todd pointed out that in 2006, Tom Vilsack announced plans to run for President only TWO DAYS after the midterm election. Now, I realize that didn't turn out quite the way Mr. Vilsack planned, but he seems happy as a cabinet secretary anyway. There are all the candidates, possible candidates, viable candidates, celebrity candidates, formidable candidates, laughable candidates, etc...but nobody seems to want to be the first to put on the boxing gloves and start the fight.

I had already dedicated one post to possible contenders, but let's reemphasize those we may or may not be discussing; and there are different levels of the candidates in my mind. (Disclaimer: the names of these groups do not reflect on the quality of the candidate, just name recognition and perceived interest)

TOP TIER CANDIDATES: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich

LEARN MORE ABOUT THEM CANDIDATES: Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, John Thune

DARK HORSE/CLAIM-NOT-TO-BE-INTERESTED CANDIDATES: Mitch Daniels, Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal

Here's what I think the problem is: all of them are worried about jumping in too early and not being able to shore up support across the board. Let's be honest, a lot of their respective constituencies would cross over: The Huckabee/Palin/Gingrich/Barbour/Santorum voters look very similar. Just as the Romney/Thune/Daniels/Christie voters probably all have the same priorities. Nobody wants to get in the ring first, because then he (or she) becomes target #1. And to be honest, the biggest concern is probably the potential "she" in that race. If Ms. Palin decides to jump in, it'll deal a huge blow to Huckabee and Gingrich's chances. That's why she'd wait until later to get in. I am quite surprised that some of those listed in the lower two categories aren't talking more openly about it, because they're going to need time to get their names out there, and set themselves apart from the other well-known Republican contenders. Do we all know Sarah Palin? You betcha. But do we all really know John Thune? I don't think so. Jeb Bush deals an interesting blow to the field too. His name is quite "well known" so he may not have to take time introducing himself to the country, but he may very well need to use that time polishing that name. Will the Tea Party rise up and get Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich as their nominee (and probably lose a blowout to Barack Obama in the general) or will Republicans believe that it's going to take policy intellect and rhetorical moderation to beat a sitting President and nominate someone else?

And all this time, President Obama (and his team in the White House) sit back and salivate at the thought of some of these contenders. You can bet that they'll be campaigning against some of these folks in the near future. They'll start their subtle attack early and many contenders in the field (i.e., when the President referenced Governor Romney when talking about healthcare). You'll start to see that more and more. They'll begin to juxtapose their own positions with those who they see as possible 2012 opponents. And they'll start doing it very soon. They pretty much already have. They can run against all the Republicans and their ideas (or lack thereof) at once. But my question for the White House is: what do you do if the Republican ticket isn't the only one you're running against??? Did you see the Huffington Post story about an independent bid being shopped around? If you haven't you should:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/16/bloomberg-scarborough-2012-president_n_784593.html

People are always chatting about possible third party bids...we'll here's what is probably your best shot at it for a while. An actual Independent Presidential ticket consisting of President Bloomberg and Vice-President Scarborough. So what do you do then if you're the White House? Michael Bloomberg is a true independent, who's done marvelous things for the city of New York, and he's pro-choice and pro-gun control just like the Democratic president...but Joe Scarborough is pro-life and pro-gun, presumably like whoever the Republican nominee will be. You can bet an independent ticket will have to work a million times as hard and strive not to highlight the differences between Bloomberg and Scarborough, but the similarities; in other words, they'll focus 99% of their energy and attention on FISCAL issues and claim that neither party has had a viable, working solution that's good for the middle class. So what do you do? What if the 2012 race looks like this: Obama/Biden (D) vs. Bloomberg/Scarborough (I) vs. Romney/Thune (R). What does that look like when election night is over. Who do you vote for and why? The announcements may have not come yet...but believe me, they're coming.

Make No Mistake...

Alright, so let's not mince words here: Georgia is a red state. A pure, through-and-through, red state; at least as far as this cycle goes. It hurts to lose in such a sweeping manner, it really does. But I can handle loss; there were some legitimate, hard-fought races that were settled last night: Agriculture Commissioner, won by Gary Black...who I voted for (Congrats Gary), State School Superintendent, won by John Barge, who I did not support, but is at least competent in the educational field, U.S. Senator, handily won by Johnny Isakson; no surprise there, even the Governor's race, which I think must have been one of the smelliest races, because everyone I've talked to, who voted for Deal or for Barnes, said they held their nose while they did it, etc, etc, etc...

What I don't like about this "wave" of conservatism is that some really BAD candidates got (re)-elected last night too, for no other reason than they were Republicans in a Republican year. I cannot see how anybody with two ears or a brain could cast a vote for Casey Cagle. The man has a silver tongue, yes; but the luster only hides the fangs. Devoid of any conscience or ethical guidepost, he coasted to victory on the (R) by his name. Just like Sam Olens. A terrible candidate for Attorney General, won his race pretty easily because of his party. Just like Mark Butler in the Labor Race, dogged by ethics complaints. All these terrible candidates, with nothing to offer but party labels and enough ethical questions to keep that commission up for nights on end, made it to top statewide offices because it was a "Republican year." Because "conservatives" voted straight ticket ballots in this "Republican year." I didn't even do that. I lean Democratic most of the time, but I didn't let the little (D) or (R) make the final decision for me. I don't know what voters were thinking, because they weren't. They weren't thinking. They were following the R's like sheep. Well, let me be the one to break it to you: because you voted by the letter and not by the candidate, you missed out on Carol Porter. Ms. Carol is one of the most intelligent, talented, articulate, and ethically sound candidates I've ever had the privilege of meeting for any office, any where, whatsoever. Period. And yet, people just didn't seem to care. It's okay though, I'm willing to bet this won't be the last time you see her on a ballot (at least that's my hope). Make no mistake about it.

The U.S. House of Representatives morphed into a bit of Red Sea itself last night. And I don't think that had as much to do with the President as it did with Speaker Pelosi. She was the whipping girl on that side of Congress this year. I didn't prefer her as speaker anyway, but it doesn't matter now. (Soon to be) Speaker Boehner will find out what it's like to have national eyes on you all the time. The wave was somewhat mild in the Senate. As Democrats held on in West Virginia, California, Colorado, and most surprisingly by a large margin in Nevada. You just can't seem to beat Harry Reid. I would also like to say to the Tea Party: I know you guys would love to take credit for the enthusiasm and the wins, but there were some places last night, where you got nailed to the wall. Voters were angry, but not stupid. The stamped return to sender on your Sharron Angle, your Christine O'Donnell, your Ken Buck, and it looks like the voters of Alaska are about to slap you in the face and keep their Senior Senator Lisa Murkowski. They'd rather manually write-in her name than have to swallow anything brewed by Sarah Palin and Joe Miller. And you should remember that come 2012; just because your radical, incompetent, out-of-the-mainstream candidates can win primaries, does NOT mean they can win general elections. In states where it counts, moderate candidates win general elections. Period. This is why you'll hear many Democrats say they hope Sarah Palin runs for President in 2012; cause she can sure win a Republican primary...but get (as President Bush once eloquently put it) a "thumpin'" in the general election.

All in all, only time will tell. Can Congress get things done? Can they work together and compromise? Can Speaker Boehner lead more cohesively than Ms. Pelosi? Can the President and Republicans find common ground? And can Republicans and (Tea Party) Republicans coexist in the same legislative building without tearing one another apart? Make no mistake, it's all calculated with 2012 in mind. Oh and by the way, just in case you were wondering when the 2012 Presidential Election talk starts...it already has ;-)

Big Tent???

It's been a while. Sorry about that. I've done a lot of news watching, research, classroom activities, and kept an eye on the constant barrage of political ads. It's nasty; and it's almost over. I have continually picked out one new phrase: "we're a big tent party." The phrase of the week has changed from time to time, but this is one that has stuck pretty well. And it's an interesting one to me because you hear representatives of both parties use it. Believe me, I understand the goal: convince moderates, independents, people in the middle, and weak party members (those that only lean Democrat or Republican), that they are welcome in the party, even if there are some minor differences between the two. I appreciate the approach; quite frankly, it appeals to someone like me.

This cycle, my biggest problem is with the Republicans. I think it's very disingenuous of them to use the phrase in a year where they've offered ideological purity tests to their candidates, and run sitting incumbents out of office because they aren't "conservative enough." Quite frankly, I hope Lisa Murkowski wins in Alaska. She's good for her state, and it'll slap the Tea Party right in the face. That's just me though. Does this mean that voters who don't completely, 100% align with the Republican Party platform won't vote for Republican candidates? No. They'll bite their collective tongue and push the button (eehhemm...Nathan Deal). But in the long term, if the Republican Party keeps pushing candidates farther and farther right, the voters will not follow. If the only Republican candidates they see are professional screamers and complainers, those voters will switch back. Maybe they don't like everything Democrats do, but they sure appreciate more than just whining. This self-proclaimed "big tent party" is pushing out all Hispanics, gays and lesbians, people who like the U.S. Department of Education, those who don't want to privatize Social Security, everyone working minimum wage jobs, and any politician who dares to think a tax increase might be needed sometimes. Ever. Their answer is never. And that doesn't always work. In the short term, when people are pissed off and fired up, that will work. We're probably going to see it work in a couple of races in 6 days or so. But in the long term, it completely eliminates your chance of being seen as a big tent party. There are some Republicans that I could vote for; there are some Republicans that I did vote for (I've early voted already and you should too). But the farther and farther right the party goes, the less likely I am to find those moderate candidates.

Don't let me fool you. Democrats are certainly not innocent angels. It's one big problem I have with the party. Would I make the argument that Democrats' tent is a bigger tent? Yes. But consider this. When was the last time a pro-life Democrat was on the national Presidential ticket? Can't think of one...don't blame you. Let's try this another way. Do these names ring a bell: Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Al Gore...these were men who were all pro-life...until they ran for office as Democrats. They obviously took politically expedient ways to office. I'm not saying that none of them had a genuine change of heart, but I'm just illustrating a point. If I'm not mistaken, Hubert Humphrey and Sargent Shriver were both pro-life, but they aren't listed as President/Vice-President in the back of mediocre high school U.S. History book, now are they? A good number of Democrats would scoff at the notion of running pro-life candidates because women are such a large voting bloc in the party, but pro-life Democrats are out there. I can speak as one of them. I have actually moderated on this issue over the last few years. I used to be a very radically pro-choice voter, but I have since moved to the right on this issue. Enough to call myself pro-life. But I am also consistent about it. "From womb to tomb" as the old adage says. I am pro-life on the abortion issue, but I am also pro-life in the court system, which translates to me being opposed to the death penalty (this is one issue where a lot of Republicans are hypocrites). Big whigs in my party might laugh at the thought of me running for national office. And that's just my point about the label of "big tent"...where does anyone fit? How can anyone possibly fit? We all bite our tongues to some degree, because there are rarely candidates that we agree with 100%. I'm pro-life, pro-tax cuts for small businesses, pro-school vouchers and pro-2nd Amendment rights, generally Republican positions. But I'm also pro-universal healthcare, pro-tax increases for wealthy individuals, pro-affirmative action and pro-gay rights, generally Democratic positions. In each election, the big tents always appear to make a spot for you under them. People have to make the best, most informed decision that they can sleep with at night. That's just the simple fact. Which is why I hate it when people around here ask me if I regret voting for President Obama. No, I do not. Given the same circumstance as 2008, I'd cast that vote a million times over and over again. Now, you give me a plethora of candidates along the ideological spectrum, representing those actual big tents that I could possibly vote for, we'll talk about 2012.

My question is, in the future, will there even be two big tents to choose from?

I Love Tea...No, Really, I'm Starting To Like It

Here it is: my complete and final list of non-Georgia races to watch come election night. I ended up with 11 and, quite frankly, made some mistakes along the way. Most notably, #4. If you view my previous two posts about these races I had already typed in Mike Castle as the Republican nominee for Senate in Delaware. I was wrong. Completely, surprisingly, totally, and WONDERFULLY wrong. Christine O'Donnell is the sole reason for the title of this post. I thought Rand Paul, Sharon Angle, and Rick Scott were bad. They look like acceptable professionals compared to Ms. O'Donnell. Republican voters are shooting themselves in the proverbial feet with these races. And come November, they'll be slapping themselves on the forehead. There are so many of these races that SHOULD NOT BE CLOSE IN A YEAR LIKE THIS...but they are...because conservatives are choosing their nominees from West of Crazytown, a little to the right of Insaneville, just outside of LostTheirMinds-ington. #s 4, 6, 7, and 11 are states that, in this climate, should have been in the bag, but are now up in the air. Thanks for that by the way. The tea tastes great.

1. Florida Senate: Meek (D) vs. Crist (I) vs. Rubio (R)

2. California Senate: Boxer (D) vs. Fiorina (R)

3. Connecticut Senate: Blumenthal (D) vs. McMahon (R)

4. Delaware Senate: O'Donnell (R) vs. Coons (D)

5. Indiana Senate: Coats (R) vs. Ellsworth (D)

6. Alaska Senate: Miller (R) vs. McAdams (D) vs. Possible Write-In Candidacy For Murkowski

7. Kentucky Senate: Paul (R) vs. Conway (D)

8. Rhode Island Governor: Chaffee (I) vs. Caprio (D) vs. Robitaille (R)

9. California Governor: Whitman (R) vs. Brown (D)

10. Maine Governor: LePage (R) vs. Mitchell (D) vs. Cutler (I)

11. Florida Governor: Sink (D) vs. Scott (R)

Okay, so for weeks now I've been promising endorsements/support in these races. It's well known by now that I'm not completely the most liberal Democrat out there. I agree with the Democratic Party on the majority of the issues, but I refuse to "straight ticket" vote. I will not vote for someone just because he or she is a Democrat. That being said, some of these races are on this list because they are fun to watch, not because my support is in the air. Some are easy picks:

2. Boxer (D). In a Democratic state, she's a Democratic powerhouse. She's good for the party, and she's good for her state. Period.

4. Coons (D). He's not crazy. O'Donnell is. I'm not going to lie. I was fully prepared to endorse Mike Castle in this race because he is not that far to the right, and he's been a major benefit to Delaware during his years in the house. Overall I thought (and still think) he would have been the best fit. But you can't win them all.

6. McAdams (D). Have you met Joe Miller? Enough said.

7. Conway (D). One Paul is enough. Ron isn't completely out on the fringe of the right. But I have no respect for Rand, pandering to old school thought about Civil Rights legislation and then whining when he's called out on it.

9. Brown (D). Experience. Jerry Brown.

11. Sink (D). Rick Scott is big insurance. He is a poster-boy for why we needed health insurance reform. He defrauded seniors through Medicare. He makes me sick.

I assume all of you can count and keep up, but I'll say it anyway: this leaves #s 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10. Numbers 1, 8, and 10 are on the list because of the influence of Independent candidates this year. In Florida and Rhode Island, it was Republicans pushed out of the party for not being conservative enough. In Maine, it was a Democrat switching over. In Florida my support goes to: Charlie Crist (I). He is the Governor, he knows what he's doing, he's experienced enough for the job and when it comes down to the issues that matter, he's got his head around the solutions. His common sense experience is needed in the Senate. For the same reasons, my support in Rhode Island goes to Lincoln Chaffee (I). Same things, except for not in the Senate. In Maine, I'm sticking with the Democrat, Libby Mitchell (D).

This leaves two races: the Connecticut Senate race and the Indiana Senate race. In Indiana, I think Dan Coats having been a Senator before is a good thing, and I don't think he's crazy. Which is a legitimate issue this year. But he has some lobbying ties that he's sweeping under the rug and using rhetoric like "Obama-Pelosi-Ellsworth" health care bill. So in the end, my support here stays with Ellsworth (D). Here's the final one...literally, the last one I decided. My support in the Connecticut Senate race goes to: Linda McMahon (R). The wrestling business is a non-issue for me. She was involved in show business, she was damn good at it. Get over it. Richard Blumenthal has an integrity problem that I simply cannot get past. I think Ms. McMahon is a moderate, with business knowledge, who probably isn't likely to get caught up in being the typical "politician." She's my Republican for the year.